Wilson v. U.S. District Court Courthouse et al, No. 3:2023cv00572 - Document 2 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Copies mailed to Plaintiff as directed - mailed 9/14/23. Signed by District Judge Roderick C. Young on 9/13/23. (mful)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. U.S. District Court Courthouse et al Doc. 2 Case 3:23-cv-00572-RCY Document 2 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division VINCENT ELLIOT WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:23CV572 (RCY) U.S. DISTRICT COURT, et. al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, submitted this action. Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1 The pertinent statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Wilson v. Arthur, No. 3:23cv82 (DJN), 2023 WL 2506420, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023); Wilson v. Burgess, No. 3:22cv662 (DJN), 2023 WL 2505863, at *5 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023); Wilson v. Arthur, No. 3:22cv602 (DJN), 2023 WL 2507554, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023), aff’d 2023 WL 4839377 (4th Cir. July 28, 2023); Wilson v. U.S.P.S, No. 3:22cv689 (DJN), 2023 WL 1997069, *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2023); Wilson v. Lindsey, No. 3:23cv83 (DJN), 2023 WL 1997070, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2023), aff’d 2023 WL 1 The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:23-cv-00572-RCY Document 2 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 14 4839386 (4th Cir. July 28, 2023). Plaintiff’s current complaint does not suggest that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.2 Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis will be DENIED. The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff remains free to submit a new complaint with the full $402 filing fee. The Court will process such a complaint as a new civil action. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ Roderick C. Young ung United States District strict Jud Judge dggee Date: September 13, 2023 Richmond, Virginia 2 Plaintiff names the U.S. District Court “Courthouse,” Judge David J. Novak, Judge Mark. R. Colombell, the United States of America, and perhaps the Commonwealth of Virginia (ECF No. 1, at 1, 3), and faults them for dismissing his many cases, charging excessive fees, and depriving him of free copies. (Id. at 6–7, 9.) The remainder of the action is a general airing of grievances about his conditions of confinement, including that he had cancer for two years and the detention center did not provide him treatment for cancer upon his arrival, and his contention that the Clerk’s Office allegedly has hung up on him when he tries to “tell them that the Arlington County Jail is trying to kill him in his food and ask[s] to speak with police or Marshals.” (Id. at 7–8.) Even if the named Defendants were somehow personally involved in these allegations, which they are not, Plaintiff fails to show that he is in imminent danger of serious harm. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
